>From the fingers of Chuck Murcko flowed the following:
>
>Randy Terbush wrote:
>>
>> No. The license needs to appear in the source files to remove all
>> doubt. There are enough questions about the license as it is.
>>
>> If you want to reduce the size of the distribution, remove the
>> docs. I don't quite understand why we ever decided they needed to
>> be included.
>
>Not to mention that compressed, the license text takes next to no room
>at all, since it is identical in every case, and probably adds only
>about 5-10k to the packaged distribution. The separate manual
>distribution is a +1, though.
No.. -0 if not -1. Lots of people (I'm assuming) download the kit
for installation on unconnected intranets, and having to go back
when they realised they didn't have the docs would be a pain to
them.
One reason we include them is because they document the software the
*user* has, as opposed to the latest&greatest which is on the Web
site. We've already received some reports about people expecting
the stuff on the Web site to reflect the [older] software they
have running; I anticipate that the number would climb if the Web
site was the main source. There's also the issue of them having to
unpack & integrate a separate doc kit into their site; currently, a
single Alias in the main server config does the trick, and always
reflects the software they're using. They should have a local copy
(that doesn't keep hitting on our Web site) for performance and
compatibility reasons - and they shouldn't have to jump through
hoops to get it. Isn't anyone else irritated by large vendors' no
longer shipping hcopy manuals, even as an option? IMHO, the docs
should be bundled.
#ken P-)}